RiverDog wrote:We discussed this issue in another thread a number of months ago. I get the majority of my news from my Microsoft news feed on my Surface tablet. I can pick out the sources that are used and have intentionally selected both conservative sources as well as liberal. I want a wide viewpoint from multiple angles. I'll watch the local news on our NBC affiliate in the mornings and I get a digital replica of our local newspaper. When I'm at my gym, I'll watch either Fox or MSNBC on the TV as those are the only two national news syndicates available.
The problem with the media isn't the accuracy or reliability of their reporting. They can't afford to put out a story that hasn't been thoroughly checked out as it would damage their credibility. They don't want a scandal like CBS had to endure with the Bush Air National Guard story or CNN experienced with the Operation Tailwind story. That's why I insist on seeing a story in one of the major news services or some other source I trust before I'll believe it as although it won't necessarily be an objective report, they won't publish 'fake news.'
The problem is the stories they choose to report on. As I noted, when I exercise on an aerobic machine at the gym, I can watch either Fox News or MSNBC and will alternate between the two. On one particular day, Fox was reporting on a female college student from Iowa that was murdered by an illegal alien. I turned the channel to MSNBC and found that their lead story was the Ukraine scandal. News services are for-profit, so they will show stories that will attract and retain viewers so they will select stories that they feel will appeal to their core viewers as advertisers look at the size and demographics of the viewers that are watching a particular station. Even non profits like NPR will feature stories that appeal to their audience as they, too, have a vested interest in attracting and retaining viewers. The same is true with print media. You want a liberal spin, read the Washington Post. You want a conservative spin, read the Washington Examiner.
I'll also look for the sources reporters are quoting. A named source always carries more weight than "sources close to the President".
Maybe the actual news stories have to be accurate, but the commentators get to do what they want as near as I can tell. These commentators are the ones feeding people their opinions, not the generic news stories. If someone wants unsubstantiated crap news, they go to social media. If they want a good rant absent sufificient evidence, they go to Hannity, Tucker, Lemon, or Cooper. Where they seem to just rattle on with their opinion. Same with people like John Oliver. That is not news, but they have tremendous power to influence opinion and votes. It's why they get paid.
As near as I can tell right, an agenda is being pushed to attack white men sending them into a tizzy. I don't watch much of it myself, but that seems to be the takeaway. The latest Fox News story is about someone in the Seattle City Council pushing some "you should apologize" for being white training or something. This crap is just further inflaming divisions.